Angolan Civil War 1975-2002

Originally posted by Sartor Resartus
Well come on, don't be so standoffish. What are the conditions like in Angola today?
I have heard from a friend who has regular dealings with Angola , and with Angolan embassies in the Western hemisphere, that it is very difficult to get any thing done efficiently and promptly there.

The conditions in Angola are the ones to be expected in country that was at war for 40 plus years.

it is very difficult to get any thing done efficiently and promptly there.

Even though I don't know exactly what your friend is referring to I think that this is mostly true.
Can you provide a few more details of what exactly you're talking about?

Originally posted by adam warlock
The conditions in Angola are the ones to be expected in country that was at war for 40 plus years.

it is very difficult to get any thing done efficiently and promptly there.

Even though I don't know exactly what your friend is referring to I think that this is mostly true.
Can you provide a few more details of what exactly you're talking about?

My friend, who is personally based in Europe, often complains of the difficulty, and sometimes the inpossibility, of even being able to establsh telephone or internet connection with major companies based in Luanda, and of the frequent failure to get effecive action when this obstacle has been overcome.
Similarly he says there seems to be a lack of iniative or comprehension when he has to contact some of the Angolan embassies in places like Honduras and Panama.
I may add that his native language is Portuguese and that he has a first-class command of English, French, and Spanish as well.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I didn't say 'the Union', I said 'the United States' -- an entity that did not exist so long as there was civil war.

The United States still existed (unless you're making a play on words) during the Civil War despite the illegitimate attempt by certain State governments to leave a "Perpetual Union".

I'd said the United States conducted itself rather well during the Civil War. It helped having a truly great man being its President during that crisis.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'd said the United States conducted itself rather well during the Civil War. It helped having a truly great man being its President during that crisis.

Didn't Lincoln cause the Civil War?

Originally posted by adam warlock
Didn't Lincoln cause the Civil War?

No, he didn't.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No, he didn't.

As far as I'm aware the South wanted to leave the Union due to economic exploitation. The question of slavery never was about abolishing it or not (where it already existed). The question of slavery was if it should be expanded into new territories and new states.

My understanding is that Lincoln violated the truce regarding Fort Pickens via secret executive orders (later on Lincoln refused to deliver documents about the armistice at Fort Pickens to Congress).

Lincoln also caused the escalation of violence at Fort Sumter:
1 - Under Buchanon, Star of the West, a merchant ship, headed to Fort Sumter with two hundred soldiers, ammunition and supplies. A single shot was fired as a warning and the ship went back.
2 - At the time of this incident Governor Pickens made it quite clear that any future action like that one would be seen as an act of war.
3 - Buchanan confirmed the armistice regarding Fort Pickens and Fort Sumter. In return the South wouldn't attack both forths.
4 - Gustavus Fox tried to introduce a plan to the Buchanan administration to secretly reinforce Fort Sumter. Buchanan refused any such thing because it would violate his previous agreement.
5 - The Morril Tariff was signed, the highest protective tariff in American history so far. This was seen by the South as a threat.
6 - After being elected Lincold had this to say: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists... I have no inclination to do so".
7 - Lincoln made every cabinet member to pledge the enforcement of the Constitution (including the fugitive state clause)
8 - Lincoln also had this to say: "The power confided in me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere". The South saw this as a veiled declaration of war by Lincoln.
9 - Several people of the South stated that they saw this as a "warning" that Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens were going to be reinforced (which would be a calculated act of war under the previous agreement)
10 - Lincoln didn't want to see the commissioners, refused to negotiate any peace terms and refused to recognize the confederate government. During all of this the South always that would pay their proportional debts and pay fair market value for all federal property inside the seceding states.
11 - Lincoln actively sought to reinforce Fort Sumter knowing very well that it would be seen as an act of war.
12 - All but one cabinet member of Lincoln opposed any plan to reinforce Fort Sumter knowing that doing so would cause a war.
13 - Major Anderson said that reinforcing Fort Sumter would be nearly impossible and any such try would cause an unnecessary war. Major Anderson also said that it wouldn't be need to send any food since he head an agreement with Governor Pickens and merchants in Charleston that provided him with food on a daily basis.
14 - Once again Lincoln refused to present documents that the congress asked him regarding the question of Fort Sumter.
15 - President told that the plan that intended to reinforce Fort Sumter would be out into effect.
16 - Lincoln issued secret executive orders that called for troops to be assembled and for warships to be ready.
17 - Confederate commissioners detected a lot of military activity and became suspicious. At this stage it was said that Lincoln wanted to to supply Fort Sumter with food and supplies, but not with troops (because men were starving in Fort Sumter - even though they had food on a daily basis). It was also said that Lincoln would inform Governor Pickens before doing so.
18 - Food supplies to Fort Sumter were cut at April 7 only when the South was sure about the sending of troops and ships to precipitate an attack on Fort Sumter.
19 - At this point Major Anderson didn't know about the sending of reinforcements and apparently wanted to withdraw.
20 - At April 20 Major Anderson sent a letter saying that the coming reinforcements were a surprise to him and to the South and that it "would produce the most disastrous results".
21- The South intercepted this letter and was now in the possession of the information that Lincoln was sending massive number of troops violating all previous assurances. Lincoln was sending 8 ships, with 26 cannons and 1400 men.

Why do you say that Lincoln didn't cause the war in light of all of this?

http://www.amazon.com/Century-War-Lincoln-Wilson-Roosevelt/dp/B000O7MDG8

Originally posted by adam warlock
As far as I'm aware the South wanted to leave the Union due to economic exploitation. The question of slavery never was about abolishing it or not (where it already existed). The question of slavery was if it should be expanded into new territories and new states.

My understanding is that Lincoln violated the truce regarding Fort Pickens via secret e ...[text shortened]... this?

http://www.amazon.com/Century-War-Lincoln-Wilson-Roosevelt/dp/B000O7MDG8

Your understanding is a BS fantasy. The seceding States were quite explicit about why they attempted to leave the Union in their Secession Ordinances and the overwhelming reason cited was slavery and the supposed Northern plot to abolish it.

Fort Sumter was owned by the US. That a bunch of brigands supposed they could dictate to the US government what supplies could be delivered there is of no consequence legally nor is the feckless ex-President's acquiescence to such demands. The first shots in the Civil War were fired by traitors from South Carolina. Therefore, they started the war.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Because there was never a stable government. "Civil War" broke out at independence ... but as pointed out "Civil War" is incorrect as there was no unified country.

Shame on you Portugal!

Civil war broke out at independence because the Angolans chose to annex territory without inviting representatives from that territory to be part of the decision making process.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your understanding is a BS fantasy. The seceding States were quite explicit about why they attempted to leave the Union in their Secession Ordinances and the overwhelming reason cited was slavery and the supposed Northern plot to abolish it.

Fort Sumter was owned by the US. That a bunch of brigands supposed they could dictate to the US g ...[text shortened]... s in the Civil War were fired by traitors from South Carolina. Therefore, they started the war.

If you say so. There was a prior deal and Lincoln disrespected it. Almost everyone around him warned what was about to happen if he disrespected the agreement. Lincoln said that he main concern never was the abolishment of slavery.

I'm inclined to think that Lincoln had a very big part in the Civil War in light of all of this.

But this is not the topic of this thread.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Civil war broke out at independence because the Angolans chose to annex territory without inviting representatives from that territory to be part of the decision making process.

This is the most ignorant thing I've seen you say in this board. And believe me I've seen you say the most wildly ignorant things.

Do you know the importance of FLEC during the civil war you fool? The main actors were UNITA and MPLA. After them it was FNLA and very far in the field was FLEC. To say that the Civil War in Angola started due to the "annexation" of Cabinda is the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my life.

But I guess history as it happened is no match for your 5 minutes google searches.

Originally posted by adam warlock
If you say so. There was a prior deal and Lincoln disrespected it. Almost everyone around him warned what was about to happen if he disrespected the agreement. Lincoln said that he main concern never was the abolishment of slavery.

I'm inclined to think that Lincoln had a very big part in the Civil War in light of all of this.

But this is not the topic of this thread.

Here's the reasons South Carolina itself gave for secession:

We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/secession_causes.htm

Where is the outcry over tariffs or economic exploitation you were yammering about?

If you want to insist that Lincoln started the war because he did something South Carolina didn't like and so they started attacking a US fort, I can't stop you. I can only re-state how ridiculous such a claim is.

Originally posted by adam warlock
This is the most ignorant thing I've seen you say in this board. And believe me I've seen you say the most wildly ignorant things.

Do you know the importance of FLEC during the civil war you fool? The main actors were UNITA and MPLA. After them it was FNLA and very far in the field was FLEC. To say that the Civil War in Angola started due to the "ann ...[text shortened]... life.

But I guess history as it happened is no match for your 5 minutes google searches.

...says the man lecturing us about the US Civil War.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Here's the reasons South Carolina itself gave for secession:

We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held ...[text shortened]... attacking a US fort, I can't stop you. I can only re-state how ridiculous such a claim is.

I wasn't yammering about the "the outcry over tariffs or economic exploitation" I was quoting. So, you see, it weren't my words.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
...says the man lecturing us about the US Civil War.

Why aren't you addressing my point?

I'm not lecturing no one about nothing.